I fear that doing the cut-and-paste of what led me to think I detected resentment would only feel like an attack on you. I would rather not do this, unless you insist. I don’t think it would be pleasant and would likely only lead to greater animosity.

Perhaps I’m mistaken and misunderstood your comments. Perhaps you feel no resentment whatsoever.

It sure would be nice if you could point out the specific comments that you may have mistaken or misunderstood. It’s fine to say “That strikes me like you’re saying or you feel thus and such”…very, very important to point to one or more actual statements or I won’t learn. Beyond that, though, the public guessing of attitudes and motives limits YOUR ability to have a meaningful conversation.

Although I’ve tried to restrain it, this particular comment does have a tinge or two of sarcasm. The best I can tell, I’m reacting to a sense that you’re coming across like ‘the thought police’. Reading into statements, reinterpreting statements, hinting at unspoken motives, offering advice, advising on which thoughts are unacceptable. It feels like a curious mix of condescension and coercion that’s got me bristling just a bit.

Perhaps I’m mistaken and misunderstood your comments. Perhaps you feel no resentment whatsoever.

And I agree that our perspectives about what “those who identify by their orientation” are like are based on very different experiences. Although I do know gay people from around the world – including Minnesota – I most likely do not know the people whom were your friends when you lived in Minneapolis.

And as for whether you accept sexual orientation as a valid construct, well that’s up to you. it only limits your ability to have meaningful conversation.

The entire ‘orientation’ detour started here after you had suggested that I was up for jailing people just for being gay:

Please ignore the advice of persons who justify the jailing of people for their “morally unsound” sexual orientation and who think that forced reorientation is unfairly criticized. Their judgment is suspect.

I responded that I thought this statement (since it echoed some of my recent words) was a personal slam and I then went on to clarify to Alan how it was not a true echo of my position.

Alan, don’t be misled. I do not justify the jailing of people for their sexual orientation; I do however believe that it might be appropriate to penalize certain behaviors. Further, I’m not in favor of forced reorientation. As I’ve said before, I question the entire construct of ’sexual orientation’. Even if the construct is legitimate, I find far too many people ascribing far too many things to ‘their orientation’. It’s a science that is yet incomplete.

I was clarifying, in a comment directed to Alan that you, in trying to speak for me, were getting things a bit twisted and since I’ve already had dialogues with Alan re the concept of ‘orientation’ and the problems with it, that was a clear point to show where you were putting words in my mouth.

Your response was not that you hadn’t been snidely referring to me but rather to correct me on my stance on orientation by directing me to the piece you had written. Now, let’s put that in perspective. You attempt to speak my position for me and get it a tch wrong. I clarify my position to that person. You attempt to show me the error of my belief. Your attempts don’t change the beliefs that I clarified to Alan. We wrangle over it because you haven’t managed to change those beliefs. And in conclusion you say:

I don’t have a problem with the term ex-gay. But we were talking about sexual orientation and (whether PFOX likes it or not) ex-gay is not an orientation.

Look, Eddy, don’t be gay. Be ex-gay.

Really. I am not for a moment suggesting you should do otherwise. You have chosen a path that gives meaning to you. You have based your decisions on your values and crafted your life.

But don’t resent folks who have made other decision.

To sum up your conclusion: Look, Eddy, ex-gay is not an orientation. (With the clear implication that ‘Yes, the construct exists and is valid, and ex-gay isn’t in it.) Or to put it another way, “When you told Alan that you didn’t believe in the ‘orientation construct’, I corrected you. I told you how it is. You don’t believe it but I’m telling you it’s so. Man up!”

You then infer that I resent folks who have made the other decision. I have ONLY been defending my right to NOT believe in the orientation construct, can you show me any statements that indicate I resent people ‘who have made the other decision’? What I clearly resent is people telling ME what to think and how to believe and people putting words in my mouth. I think you’ll likely find evidences of THAT resentment but the charge is ‘that I resent folks who have made the other decision’. I need for you to support that charge from my words.

The remainder of your post may simply be attributable to geographical social differences. My only exception to it is your presumption that your view is the correct one and to disagree means ‘that I really don’t know gay folk at all’. I had numerous gay friends in Minneapolis, couldn’t get them to come to karaoke because it wasn’t in a ‘gay bar’…even though I had assured them that the bar was ‘gay friendly’. I’d suggest going out to eat and we’d have to go to the place with ‘the gay waiters’. Maybe it’s simply the difference between California and Minnesota. I’ve never hung out in California so can’t speak to those differences. I do know that there’s a significant difference in the gay community where I now live and the community in Minneapolis. For one thing, in Minneapolis there was a pretty strong sense of ‘community’ and there were known areas of town that were particularly ‘gay friendly’. We don’t seem to have that here. Seems like there’s a small area downtown that’s actually ‘gay friendly’ and that the rest is ‘gay tolerant.’. You get out to the ‘burbs where I live and even ‘tolerant’ is too generous a word.

I’m beginning to think that perhaps California has been ‘out and proud’ so long that the newness of saying ‘I’m a gay this or that’ has worn off. Minneapolis, though out and proud, came to that later than California and haven’t lost it yet. And my current area, barely out and proud at all by comparison. Many, rather than declare themselves to be a ‘gay anything’, are still rather closeted publicly.

I was a tad put-out that rather than say ‘gay people aren’t like that everywhere’, you chose instead to judge that I don’t know gay people well at all and to presume that your personal experience is the measure for all gay people.

Someday I’ll learn to read closely before hitting submit

I don’t have a problem with the term ex-gay. But we were talking about sexual orientation and (whether PFOX likes it or not) ex-gay is not an orientation.

Look, Eddy, don’t be gay. Be ex-gay.

Really. I am not for a moment suggesting you should do otherwise. You have chosen a path that gives meaning to you. You have based your decisions on your values and crafted your life.

But don’t resent folks who have made other decision. And sometimes you say things that make me think that you don’t understand gay folk that well.

We really don’t go around putting “gay” before everything, you know. I’m a gay bowler, I”m a gay accountant, I’m a gay singer, I’m a gay blueberry farmer. Wow that would be odd.

I think that other folk use that a lot more than we do, especially the media. We then to clarify mostly when it’s relevant (when looking for an accountant to make sense of inconsistent tax laws for gay couples, for example) or when under attack.

I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone actually say, “I’m a gay parent” outside of defending gay parents from some smear or lie.

First, I appreciate the tone of this latest response. I do hear what you’re saying…especially the concern about how using SSA will likely morph into the same generalizations. I still feel that there’s something bigger going on with the construct of orientation but I’m obviously not being successful at getting that across.

I do puzzle over this:

Outside of this blogsite, “I have a homosexual orientation but I believe that God wishes me to live a chaste life and I hope to some day experience heterosexual attraction” makes sense to everyone. They may dislike your choices, but that is their problem, not yours.

I don’t understand all the objection to the term ‘ex-gay’…which to me says all that and, btw, usually gets the same dislike response. Why the necessity to somehow quantify how ‘ex’ my ‘exness’ is or isn’t? It seems to create a focus that isn’t necessary. It’s a personal journey and believe me it’s very fluid…with the fluidity sometimes running in both directions (but usually not at the same time).

For those who identify by their orientation, it also seems to put sexuality as an identifier above all other things. Rather than “I’m a Christian”, it’s “I’m a gay Christian”. Rather than “I’m a parent”, it’s “I’m a gay parent”. It’s as if the gay identity somehow modifies the meaning of the word that follows. On one level, we hear ‘but we’re just like the heteros except for who we partner with’ but the presence of that ever-present modifier suggests that there are differences.

I think we can agree that there are real differences implied by the use of the modifier. A ‘gay Christian’ is likely to be a tch more liberal in their theology. A ‘gay parent’, much like a ‘single parent’, has unique parenting challenges. For the ‘ex-gay’, the ‘gay’ modifier isn’t appropriate in that it doesn’t communicate who they are and doesn’t give a clear and honest picture of their sexuality. It does not help them to be seen for who they are.

We all know that labelling does more than just label. After all, isn’t that what the objection to the label ‘ex-gay’ was all about. “Some won’t understand; some will think that it means you no longer experience homosexual attractions.” People read into labels. In any conversation that goes for more than a 5 second soundbite, the ex-gay explains this reality. In my ministry days, it was pretty much the focus of my teachings…Reckoning with the Roots, Lessons for the Battlefield, etc. I avoided using phrases like ‘it’s a daily struggle’ because, quite honestly, for many it’s not a struggle in any real sense of the word. It’s no more than the daily ‘struggle’ of any Christian man in a world that offers lots of sexual suggestion and opportunity. An individual, whether single or married, who has found a sense of personal fulfillment can go days or weeks without any conflict whatsoever. Why label oneself by it when it’s not that big a deal? (I try to imagine a man waking up every morning and saying “I’m a heterosexual”…or announcing that to anyone… More than likely, he wakes up thinking “I’m a working man and I’d better get moving”. On the way to work he might drive by some ‘eye candy’. Does he stop to remind himself, “yes, I’m a heterosexual and that looks tasty”? or “Oh yes, that’s the kind I like”. I’m sure some do! But I think the healthier ones have a very momentary recognition and then their thoughts are on to something else.

But saying outside this blogsite, “I reject the construct of sexual orientation” really only makes you seem like you are in the same category as Birthers and Flat-Earthers. Rather than clarify, it dismisses you.

Unlike the Birthers and the Flat-Earthers, those who reject the construct of sexual orientation aren’t so alone. I believe it’s the Wiki piece on orientation that actually acknowledges that some scientists and some nationalities don’t accept the construct. I don’t believe you’d find such a qualifier re Birthers and Flat-Earthers. That particular door, although close to being shut, isn’t shut yet. As for being thought of in a category similar to Birthers and Flat-Earthers, it isn’t the rejection of the construct that brings that on. I can (and do) get the very same response simply by saying I’m ‘ex-gay’ or that ‘I’m homosexually attracted but choose to remain chaste for religious reasons’.

Another thought about the identification issue: There are certainly times when it’s appropriate to say “I’m a sinner saved by grace” but most Christians seldom stop with “I’m a sinner”…the ‘saved by grace’ part is a significant part of their identification. Saying “I’m a homosexual” and leaving off the ‘saved by grace’ part omits a significant part of the identification. BUT since we now have both homosexuals that believe it’s a sin and others who believe it’s a gift, the ‘saved by grace’ part no longer provides the clarification of identify.

A quirky side note: I went out last night and although I didn’t ‘desire’ or ‘lust after’ anyone, I found myself noticing the breasts of two different women all evening long. It wasn’t a flash of heterosexuality. It was simply that their attire accentuated their breasts. LOL. They wanted to be noticed and they got noticed. They drew attention to their breasts and my attention got drawn too. It humored me only because such sights used to actually produce a negative and aversive reaction in me. I neither celebrated nor felt any guilt. How much easier life must have been back in the days when both genders kept everything pretty much ‘under wraps’. Perhaps that’s why there was no pressure to identify by orientation…sex wasn’t ‘in your face’ as much as it is today.

I wanted to talk in broad terms before answering your specific questions. Now I will try to do the latter. I hate the cut and paste format, but I think it may be the only way to address each question.

Because it’s become more than descriptive…it’s become defining. When something doesn’t quite fit the descriptive category and we insist on forcing it in anyway, it becomes defining. The entire premise behind categorization is to help us recognize and appreciate the differences.

By “defining”, I think you are talking about what one does with one’s sexual orientation. For example, I think you are objecting to the idea that if one has a homosexual orientation then society expects you to behave in a certain manner, like certain artists, live in certain locations, etc.

Eddy, those “defining” expectations are really the burden that all humans bear. If you’re “Italian from New Jersey” there are some very strong assumptions about your clothing, hair, and speech. If you are “Southern Baptist” then people assume this defines your cultural experience and tolerance.

But that doesn’t mean that we reject ethnicity or religion as terms.

When we try to jam the ex-gay into the homosexual category, we erase a very significant difference.

But, Eddy, this is only a “what you do with it” difference. It’s very important to you, but it doesn’t take away from the categorization.

sexual orientation is a term that describes the orientation of ones sexual/romantic/affection attractions.

I think you read WAY too much into my inclusion of romantic and affection. This is not a tick-the-box definition. I simply added these so as to include crushes, infatuation, and falling in love, which could be argued as not being strictly sexual in nature but which also tend to follow sexual orientation attractions.

By this definition, what do we do when someone has sexual attractions to their own gender but none or little romantic or affection attractions?

Pretty much the same thing we do when some straight guy is sexually attracted to a woman (or women) but feels no romantic or affection attractions.

It doesn’t mean he’s gay. He may be a player or he may be immature or he may just have difficulty seeing women as something other than an object, but it has no reflection on his sexual orientation.

How do we respond when someone has romantic and affection attractions to the opposite gender but their sexual attraction leans more towards their same gender?

I think you are speaking about the idea of romance, not about actually falling in love.

Let me give you an example from the straight world. I’ve seen guys who really loved a woman, admired her, thought she was a great match, but when it came down to sexual feelings they just weren’t there. He loved her… he just wasn’t in love with her.

Often a gay guy will love a woman. He’ll admire her, enjoy her company, and care very much about her. But they don’t very often fall in love with a woman.

And when they do, it seldom lasts.

We could hunt up exceptions and list them, but exceptions don’t prove anything other than the complexity of humanity. And if we based our lives on rare exceptions, we would not live long. Yes we’ve seen the video of the lion who adopted the baby giraffe, but that isn’t something I’d advise giraffes to take to heart.

When we speak of fluidity (or the lack thereof) do we weigh all three of those components equally…do we merge them together and forget that they are three different attractions?

No. We do not weigh them equally. Sexual attraction is the defining attraction. It is what determines sexual orientation. The other two follow most of the time but they are not defining.

And we have to be careful about how we treat these. A desire to be married is not the same as a desire for women. A romantic notion about having a wife and child is not the same thing as being romantically attracted to women.

When we identify by the orientation, aren’t we led into reinterpreting our affectional attractions?

No, we are not. Sexual orientation is defined by sexual attraction.

A person may have affectional attractions to persons of both genders but would sometimes confuse their affectional attractions with persons of their identified preference. (A hetero male has close female friends…no sexual attraction, no romantic attraction…just affection. Do we automatically presume that it’s a package deal and that the other attractions are lurking just below the surface?

Nope. Affection is not the defining characteristic.

In short, do we start equating affectional attraction to sexual attraction?)

Never ever in the history of discussing sexual orientation has any living soul proposed equating having friends with sexual orientation.

I don’t think we’ll start today.

I do recognize that in the sciences, bisexual does exist as a category. My issues with it though are associated more with ‘common usage’. It tends to convey that an individual embraces their attractions to both genders. Common street usage often suggests that ‘there’s no such thing’…that a bisexual is simply a homosexual who won’t admit it or that their heterosexuality is a result of cultural persuasion and their homosexuality is really who they are.

Often gay men, of a certain age, first told their friends that they were bisexual, even if they’ve never felt a smidgen of attraction to women. It was a way of testing the waters for reaction before coming fully out.

So sometimes when someone with clearly no opposite sex attraction will say they are bisexual, gay men will joke about it. “Bi now, gay later.” This doesn’t mean that most gay people deny the idea of bisexuality as an orientation.

And what would it mean if some did? That a few folk are ignorant would certainly say nothing about the validity of sexual orientation as a descriptive category.

I don’t think I’ve ever read or heard a treatment of bisexuality that acknowledges the ex-gay condition. Who wants to be invisible?

That’s because bisexuality and “the ex-gay condition” are not a subset of each other.

“Ex-gay” includes those who are exclusively homosexual in orientation, those who experience attraction to both sexes, and some who claim that they are now exclusively heterosexual in attraction.

I don’t expect answers to these questions…each and every question I’ve posed thus far has been rejected. I’m simply saying that as long as these questions exist, me and mine are likely going to reject the construct of orientation.

I’ve answered. Did it impact your thinking?

It has no value to us and, at times, is used put us down and to minimalize the path we’ve chosen.

The concept of a round earth has “no value” to those who never venture off the farm. It doesn’t make it invalid.

And frankly, Eddy, much of the putting down and minimizing has nothing to do with whether sexual orientation is used.

Some people, gay or straight, are going to continue to say, “he’s a homosexual and he should just get over it and accept it.”

That’s going to be true even if you stand and declare “there’s no such thing as a homosexual, only a heterosexual with homosexual temptations.” Except then they’ll start laughing at you, and who wants that?

I don’t think that looking for validation from those who don’t share your values is the bast path to happiness.

I’m sure that quite often our resistance is fueled by a bias…we refuse to accept invisibility. Invisibility makes us feel that we have been deemed ‘not valid’.

I think your being considered ‘not valid’ as a community is due to an insistence on publicly defining yourselves in ways that are not sustainable.

For years, ex-gays have gone the “former homosexual” route in as public a venue as possible. But then many of the “former homosexuals” were discovered to have had lapses. And others were presented as “no longer gay” to audiences who nodded but really though, “are you kidding, he’s gay as a junebug.”

No offense is intended by this, but the ex-gay community has presented a string of folks as “no longer homosexual” who, frankly, just don’t come across as straight. I know that stereotypes are not how we should judge people, but when the majority of ex-gays seem more like Jack than Will, it’s hard for folks to buy in.

And that’s not due to the term “sexual orientation”.

Actually, perhaps adopting the idea of sexual orientation could lead to greater visibility. Maybe there would be more visibility, if people had something to actually visualize.

“Homosexuals who live according to a conservative sexual ethic” is readily believable. That takes no imagination, no suspicion, and everyone already knows that such folk exist. It’s easy to respect, as well.

Nor would there be hostility. No one objects to those who live according to their values. Objection comes in when they say “I’m no longer homosexual” and imply “and you shouldn’t be either.” Or when they use their own sexual choices as justification to deny civil rights to gay people.

LOL. You brought up the penguins. I can’t help but think that if penguins could communicate, they’d be protesting now and again about how, although science has rightly categorized them, people carelessly overlook them in their everyday usage. “Q: What is a bird? A: An animal that can fly.” And the careless everyday usage forgets not only the penguin but also about the bat that flies yet isn’t a bird or the squirrel that appears to fly but actually glides or the many insects (flies, bees, butterflies, etc.). So, a quick read might overlook any problems with the basic Q & A but the afterthoughts reveal that the language could stand to be a bit more precise…sometimes more inclusive, sometimes more exclusive.

No, because you are trying to define birds by what they do, not what they are. Someone could argue “I reject the construct of genus because some animals have different behavior”. But that isn’t very helpful.

I would just say that genus is a useful tool for categorization. And the genus “bird” includes critters, most of which fly but some of which do not. And if penguins are offended by being called birds or by assumptions which come with being called birds, that doesn’t change the fact that they are birds.

Similarly, sexual orientation is a useful tool for categorization. And the term homosexual includes critters, most of who accept their same sex attractions and some who do not.